Apostasy the consequences of it.

[جوري]

I'm not arguing with you on that point, I'm just saying that in most muslim countries, you are considered muslim if you are born from muslim parents.

Here's an example of what I mean:

This makes it almost impossible for Malay Muslims to convert, since they must first apply to the sharia court for permission to change their religion.

Courts are reluctant to grant this permission, since ethnic Malays are considered Muslims from birth. The same does not apply to other ethnic groups, for example ethnic groups in the states of Sarawak and Sabah, who are predominantly Christian.


Not saying this is the same everywhere and that you shouldn't improve your knowledge of Islam if you want to become a better muslim. Just like in the west a lot of "christians" do not practice or read the Bible, I'm sure the same happens in muslim countries.


Peace!

lol.. what you mean must have come from the annals of the evangelists or the stealth crusade?

further who in their right mind would want to convert to Christianity? What exactly does Christianity offer .. it is a sincere question?
When I wasn't a practicing Muslim or Muslim only in name I identified with Agnostics and Atheists.. you think someone who is on the cusp about God and their beliefs will choose even lesser more nonsensical beliefs?

all the best

 

[جوري]

Except that does not hold true for all Christians. Catholics. Lutherans, Presbyterian. Anglican. Episcopalian, United Methodist and Orthodox are Baptised shortly after birth. they are born into their Faith.

jzk.. I hadn't thought to point out how even less logical than appears to the naked eyes his argument..

 

[Sol Invictus]

While I can appreciate your desire to practice your religion, keep in mind a person needs to obey the laws of the Nation they live in. An apostate attempting to convert other Muslims would be first told to cease from doing so. If they did not cease they would most likely be exiled from the nation. To lead a Muslim away from Islam is a crime more serious than murder as it is condemning the one who converts to eternal hellfire. Serious crimes do carry serious penalties.

greetings woodrow. i should ask you what you would think if the situation were reversed. would you feel it to be right for a government to limit the freedoms of muslims as it comes to practising their religion (as is happening in france and throughout europe) or do you disagree with this? if muslims were not allowed to engage in da'wah, would you support such a law or not? i don't think you would and as such i must ask you on what basis you could disagree with the nation who would severely limit the practise of islam, but not disagree with the hypothetical muslim nation limiting the practises of those of other faiths (and in this regard we are simply focusing on proselytizing). as i see it, to agree with one and yet disagree with the other would attest to a sense of hypocrisy yet instead of labelling you as such, i am more interested in learning your reasons for why one scenario is perfectly alright, while the other isn't.

(i suppose that you could perhaps say that your decision lies on islam being the truth yet until the day that the heavens open and the muslim deity himself sets up his government on earth, this cannot be a premise on which to base your argument on. anyway i digress, i'm interested in understanding your position and not necessarily in preempting your points.)

 

[Sol Invictus]

Except that does not hold true for all Christians. Catholics. Lutherans, Presbyterian. Anglican. Episcopalian, United Methodist and Orthodox are Baptised shortly after birth. they are born into their Faith.

christians in name only. which is why they have to go through the process of confirmation when they become of age. if they had actually been born into the faith then this next step would not be needed and yet it is and as such i would seriously have to contest the point that these children are christians in the full sense of the word*.

*the above language is incredibly imprecise but i feel that you'll understand what i mean.

 

[Woodrow]

greetings woodrow. i should ask you what you would think if the situation were reversed. would you feel it to be right for a government to limit the freedoms of muslims as it comes to practising their religion (as is happening in france and throughout europe) or do you disagree with this? if muslims were not allowed to engage in da'wah, would you support such a law or not? i don't think you would and as such i must ask you on what basis you could disagree with the nation who would severely limit the practise of islam, but not disagree with the hypothetical muslim nation limiting the practises of those of other faiths (and in this regard we are simply focusing on proselytizing). as i see it, to agree with one and yet disagree with the other would attest to a sense of hypocrisy yet instead of labelling you as such, i am more interested in learning your reasons for why one scenario is perfectly alright, while the other isn't.

(i suppose that you could perhaps say that your decision lies on islam being the truth yet until the day that the heavens open and the muslim deity himself sets up his government on earth, this cannot be a premise on which to base your argument on. anyway i digress, i'm interested in understanding your position and not necessarily in preempting your points.)

Peace sol,

Yes Da'wah is a required part of our faith. but it does not rely on proselytizing. Here in the USA the most sincere Dawah is to simply live following Islam and to promote Islam through deeds and not words or preaching. Like many reverts I never had as much as one Muslim try to get me to revert to Islam. Yet, Islam found me and I accepted. I said my shahadah with only Allaah as my witness and without knowing if even one Muslim living in Texas

Even here on this forum you will often see new reverts who have come to learn more about Islam as they do not know any Muslims. Laws limiting or restricting Dawah would not affect me. However I do oppose laws that prevent us from wearing symbols of our faith such as hijab, beards, etc. But, I also oppose laws here that forbid the wearing of crosses, ringing of Church bells etc. My current campaign is to try to help overturn the recent laws that forbid some of the religious dances of the Lakotah who follow the traditional religion.

If a country claims it is a specific religion I would accept their right to restrict or limit the practices of another faith and would most likely not live there if I disagreed with the religion. However if a nations purports to allow religious freedom, I expect all religions to be treated equally.

 

[Ramadhan]

This is a popular misconception many muslims seem to have about christians and how one "becomes" christian. We are not born christians but we make the conscious decision of becoming one. What you call ex-christians are in fact people born and raised in a christian family but decide to not get baptized and be atheist or simply disbelieve.

It may be you are completely ignorant or you are delusional, but I've met plenty of catholics who were baptized but later when they could think for themselves that what they worshipped were actually human beings, they flee catholicism.
The same with other brands of christianity, I've met in real life many christians (some were even trained in seminary) who decided to forgo human-worshiping and would rather be content in agnosticism (with some finally reverted to Islam).

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
I wouldn't say he's ignorant or delusional but you do have a point. In the secular world we all live in today there are many who embrace a faith as a child and when they become adults they, don't practice it (typically in college is when they stop). I work with quite a few catholics who no longer practice some even going to non denominational churches or becoming agnostics. When I've asked them why they left, they usually said its because they got a divorce and they didn't think they could stay catholic and they were a fraid an annulment would make their children illegitament. It's sad actually, if they'd have bothered to ask their priests they would have found out that the church never deems the children as illegitament after an annulment.
Over time those that went to nondenominational churches eventually picked up the same beliefs as the non denoms. It's sad really. None of them ever said anything about human worshipping to me but if you said it then you must have met one or two that did for that reason as misguided as that is as it shows they didn't understand catholism to begin with.

Peace be with you